OK Oak I'll response to your response to my response to Geo Aar.
quote:Originally posted by Oakspear:
Hiya Def:
I wanted to jump in to respond to some of your response to George. To keep it all straight, George's word will be in quotes, your's in regular type, and mine in bold (if I remember all that :D-->
quote:Gaaak! How could it? Just _accept_ it?
(Geo, thanks for being so tolerant. Surely, your way is the most loving of all.)
_George is not claiming to be _loving_, just rational. You may argue about the logic and reasonableness of his stance...heck, you can even comment on his (lack of) love, but not as if it's the argument he is making_
You know Oak, for a smart aleck like yourself, you have a hard time fathoming SARCASM. All I was doing is spouting back at Geo.
quote:But, but, Gawd, I don't even know where to start (refer back to the "disconnect" in my prior posts).
How can you just accept something that you have no proof of?
What's your proof that God does not exist? _As you well know, you can't prove a negative. George is _NOT_ claiming that he has proof that God does not exist, merely that you have no proof that he _does_. YOU have no proof that the tooth fairy _DOES NOT_ exist, or Santa Claus, or any other of the non-Christian gods.
I have a written record and creation.
_You view that written record as proof of something that is _in_ the written record, it's a classic circular argument. Creation is not proof of God. Personally, I lean toward intelligent design, but not for any reasons that I can defend, it's just a personal preference, but the existance of something doesn't require that an intelligence (i.e. God) was behind it_
OK, so you don't like my proof. But I am arguing against someone with whom I don't have an agreed premise.
quote:You don't know where the Bible came from
Um, I think it was God. _"Um", you base that on what? That the bible says that of itself? Again, a circular argument, which is worthless.
{Yes, Oak, I believe the Bible to be the best testimony about it and God that we have today. If you want to disagree with me, so be it.}
quote:who wrote it,
Read your Bible again, we know who wrote many books
_We know who _claims_ to have written many of the books, but it is far from unanimous, even among bibliocal scholars. _
{We know people wrote it by inspiration. We know most of the writers of the New Testament and a good idea on many other books. Hard to say who wrote all the books of the OT, like many a work from back then the ruler/chief got credit for a lot.}
quote:and certainly not whether any of it is even true.
we have non-biblical sources who testify that Jesus existed, and we know archaelogists have used the Bible to find so-called "lost" cities
_Even if the questionable non-biblical sources _are_ true, all that they tell us that a person with the name Jesus (or the Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek/Latin equivalent) lived during the time indicated. Finding "lost" cities is a long way from talking donkeys and walking on water_
{That's not intellectually honest and you know it. The non-biblical records (and I am talking more than Josephus) talk about Jesus, Christ, and some even mention Pilate. As for the supernatural events mentioned in the Bible why is it so hard to imagine them happening. Why do you want to put God in a box?}
quote:You don't know if there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth*, what he actually did if he lived, what he really believed or said** (even if you believe the Bible all it ever does it quote him, he didn't actually _write_ any of it)***.
*yes we do
**ahem, we have the Gospels, the letters and the testimony of the non-biblical [pagan critics]}
_I adressed this line of reasoning already_
{And did a mighty poor job of it too, I might add.}
***And your point being?
_The point is that what you _have_, are other peoples' opinions and impressions of what Jesus said, assumimng that there _was_ a Jesus. _
{And it appears you want to use the same arguments that say there wasn't a Jesus, just because someone said so. The main proof is the spread of Christianity in a pagan world 2000 years ago. Why would these men and women concoct a lie that would cost them their lives? The passion and zeal they expressed in their lives points to an encounter with something marvelous.}
quote:So with all that unknown, we're still supposed to just _accept_ it.
It's unknown to you because you choose to reject any knowledge of it.
_Typical weak arghument. "I can't convince you by evidense, so it must be _YOU_ who don't _WANT_ to see._
{Sorry, this isn't a weak argument. I am dealing with someone who tasted the gospel. He got burnt by TWI and now rejects all things Christian. I was burnt too, but I kept searching and found some truth to hang onto.
The more people reject God's calling and knocking on their hearts, the harder their hearts become. I call them like I see them. I have learned so much about the warts and wrinkles about the faith that I am not afraid to hear the criticisms.}
And no, we are not to blindly accept anything. This isn't the kool-aid line. Christianity is a very reasonable faith.
_It's only reasonable (which is debateable) if you accept the premises, which are not at all self-evident_
{OK let's set up some premises and we'll go through them}
One thing commonly mentioned is that if you had proof or a sign you would believe.
I dont believe that would do it. These things can be rationalized away also. If they werent rationalized away, some folks take it as a sign of God's approval which they are not. Other folks would think its time to start a religion.
quote:You know Oak, for a smart aleck like yourself, you have a hard time fathoming SARCASM. All I was doing is spouting back at Geo.
In a loving manner, I'm sure ;)--> - I recognized the sarcasm, but sarcasm has a purpose: it emphasizes for the reader or listener the opposite of what is being said - you wrote that George was tolerant and loving, you meant the opposite.
quote:OK, so you don't like my proof. But I am arguing against someone with whom I don't have an agreed premise.
I don't like your proof because it isn't one. There are plausible alternative explanations. You can't use the conclusion to prove the premise.
quote:Yes, Oak, I believe the Bible to be the best testimony about it and God that we have today. If you want to disagree with me, so be it
Alrighty then :D-->
quote:That's not intellectually honest and you know it. The non-biblical records (and I am talking more than Josephus) talk about Jesus, Christ, and some even mention Pilate.
Can you refresh my memory? I recall hearing that such references existed, but not that they were authoritative in any way and were open to alternate interpretations. If not, I would gladly change my view on this portion of my argument.
quote:As for the supernatural events mentioned in the Bible why is it so hard to imagine them happening. Why do you want to put God in a box?}
I don't have trouble imagining them happening. Maybe they did, I just don't accept that the bible is any proof that they did.
quote:And did a mighty poor job of it too, I might add
Must be that lack of a common premise thing again ;)-->
quote:And it appears you want to use the same arguments that say there wasn't a Jesus, just because someone said so.
I'm not saying that there wasn't a Jesus, I don't say that either side is right or wrong, just that merely saying it doesn't make it so
quote:The main proof is the spread of Christianity in a pagan world 2000 years ago. Why would these men and women concoct a lie that would cost them their lives? The passion and zeal they expressed in their lives points to an encounter with something marvelous.
On part of this I can agree with you: a movement that later was called Christianity exploded out of Judea and across the Roman world starting in the late first century C.E. It was compelling enough that many gave their lives for it. It is my opinion that the likelihood that all of it was concocted (i.e. a lie) is vanishingly small. It is also my opinion that the possibility that some of it was embellished, exagerated, misunderstood, twisted or changed is quite good. Christianity isn't the only religion that spread in a hostile world.
quote:OK let's set up some premises and we'll go through them
Hmmm...how about "There are events in the physical world that we have no explanation for"?
One thing commonly mentioned is that if you had proof or a sign you would believe...
Sky:
I agree with you on this. So many times the "signs" that people see are not so clear that anyone would recognize them as a "sign", they can be rationalized away. Who knows, if I'd have seen Moses' burning bush maybe I would have called the fire department :P-->; or spent my time analyzing the individual wool fibers on Gideon's fleece
If you believe, it's personal. It's something that you experience, according to the testimony that I've seen here. So-called signs would be something "objective", that anyone could see...but would everyone interpret that sign the same way? Would everyone ascribe it to God? Nope.
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting while I was away. :P-->
And Def, you seem to have illustrated exactly the impass I was trying to describe in my first post. We have a disconnect. We're not speaking on the same level. You are in believer mode, and I am not. Hence, we'll have great difficulty understanding one another ( I think I have the edge, though, as I USED to believe very similarly to what you seem to now).
For all the evidence I could cite as to the various disagreements among scholars about who actually authored the O.T. AND N.T., the discrepencies in supposed secular sources (Josephus, et al), or (as Oakspear has already done) point out all the logical fallacies in your arguments, I'm quite sure you'd be perfectly comfortable dismissing it all with the wave of a hand, because it disagrees with your accepted "faith".
The place where I allow my mind to go is verboten to you. You cannot allow yourself to really take much of it in, without getting increasingly uncomfortable, or even downright angry. I get it.
And, no, I'm not claiming superior intelligence or insight or anything of the sort. I think I have a more skeptical nature, that's all. And I think at best all we can hope to do is agree to disagree.
Such is life.
And Sky, I guess you're on sebatical, but when you return, could you explain the thingy about Buddhism and molten lava? I REALLY don't get that. I'm far from an expert on the faith, but I do go to Buddhist temples from time to time (more for the architecture than anything else), and from what I can tell, they're raison d'etre is to achieve "enlightenment". Not a bad goal, really, but what's with the "molten stone" nonsense?
I may have messed or missed on that one. My understanding of some eastern religions was that they actually pray to a statue of Budda. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps also some eastern religions have modified the way they practice over the years. I am not a expert on the matter.
Perhaps you could give me that perspective because I really don't know. Yes, Geo, it was a shot in the dark, and I am presuming it was a good "shot in the dark." With respect to the Hindu topic, no response is necessary as I would not find anything to appealing about living the next life as a cow.
As far as the sabatical goes (and humorously) , my sabatical is always determined by the level of my wife's crowing (I am woman hear me roar) to which I proclaim, I will be a mouse in the house if you simply give me my quite corner.
Well yeah! We managed to have a discussion without agreeing, but also without getting mad.
I think you are mistaken about worshipping staues of Buddha, although I am not familiar with every sect. Buddhists consider the Buddha "enlightened" and his teachings worthy to be followed, but he is not considered a god in any way, shape, or form
And Def, you seem to have illustrated exactly the impass I was trying to describe in my first post. We have a disconnect. We're not speaking on the same level. You are in believer mode, and I am not. Hence, we'll have great difficulty understanding one another ( I think I have the edge, though, as I USED to believe very similarly to what you seem to now).
For all the evidence I could cite as to the various disagreements among scholars about who actually authored the O.T. AND N.T., the discrepencies in supposed secular sources (Josephus, et al), or (as Oakspear has already done) point out all the logical fallacies in your arguments, I'm quite sure you'd be perfectly comfortable dismissing it all with the wave of a hand, because it disagrees with your accepted "faith".
The place where I allow my mind to go is verboten to you. You cannot allow yourself to really take much of it in, without getting increasingly uncomfortable, or even downright angry. I get it.
And, no, I'm not claiming superior intelligence or insight or anything of the sort. I think I have a more skeptical nature, that's all. And I think at best all we can hope to do is agree to disagree.
Geo, I am skeptical too. As I have said in many posts, my faith is a messy one. Many strings have loose ends and some will never be tied up on this sod. My understanding of Christianity and the world is limited by the time and effort I put into studying it.
You and Oak have rejected Christ at varying degrees and for various reasons.
I offer a dialogue to see where you are at. We disagree on a lot, but can we at least agree to respect one another's views. If we can do that, then we can have a conversation.
Thanks Whitey, but the translation question was clear already for me.
Hebrew was without question the original language of the old testament, there's no argument as there is about the NT.
I don't have access to an Aramaic text of Genesis, and couldn't find one online, so I can't verify the word order in that language, but since Aramaic is similar grammatically to Hebrew it is likely that the word order is the same.
The fact that Lamsa _translated_ Genesis 1:1 to put the word "God" first, does not guarantee that it was first in Aramaic.
Oak Sorry lost track of this thread. I agree with you that Hebrew was without question the original language of the Old Testament. Also that just because lamsa translated Genesis that way does not guarantee that it was first in the Aramic, nor does it guarantee that it was not either.
But my response was to your comment that it was Dr Wierwille's idea! It was not he got it from Lamsa so in this case it really is a translation issue with him not something that Dr. Wierwille invented as you implied. Not that there were not plenty of other things that were "invented" Just keeping the record straight.
The first house my wife and I rented after we got married was an unusual brick house which included (at the end of the doorway hall) a stone Buddha statue, set upon its alter beneath a small skylight. That was a cool statue. In the morning the natural sunlight would beam down on it, and in times of the full moon with an especial ethereal glow.
I didn't become a Buddhist back then but I liked that statue.
The only problem with the aforementioned brick house was that it was apparently in the migratory path of thousands of crawling millipedes.
Unfortunately I did not always exercise the peaceful way in dealing with these benign albeit slimy creatures which literally covered almost every inch of my front door each evening. I must have gone through an entire can of "Raid" in two nights...with each morning spent sweeping up piles of their curled-up millipede corpses.
There must have been much weeping and gnashing throughout the millipede kingdom at that time...
I guess I'll never become a member of the "Jane gang" anytime soon, you know, those Indians who covered their mouths for fear of accidently breathing in bugs...
The first house my wife and I rented after we got married was an unusual brick house which included (at the end of the doorway hall) a stone Buddha statue
Yeah, I'm pretty well aware of the propensity for statuary in the Buddhist faith. If you'd been around a few years ago you could have seen the picture I posted of the largest bronze statue of Buddha in the world (Daibutsudan in Nara, Japan).
The comment I didn't understand was about the "molten" stone. And - I still don't.
"The first house my wife and I rented after we got married was an unusual brick house which included (at the end of the doorway hall) a stone Buddha statue
Invisible Dans comment, (thanks Dan)
I told yah I told yah I told yah"
Yeah, and many of the Christian churches have huge Crosses, statues of Jesus, etc. Does that mean the Christians are also worshipping statues? Or do they perhaps simply use them as reminders of something?
Here's a thought. Jesus said, " A wicked and adulterous generations seeks after a sign, but there shall no sign be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah" And what was that sign?
Jonah sat under a tree after the people of Ninevah were delivered from destruction. So what is the sign, that is given to our "wicked and adulterous generation", I would say the same "sign" , that is the Cross which hangs from every church.
I find this to be a miracle. Imagine if a man was slain with a knife, and in "memory" they hung
the "knife", that killed him in that persons honor. Wouldnt that be considered rubbing it in his face? Thats the rub with Christ, that cross, everyone must apply it to there own life or hang one in ornamental fashion as tho they are honoring him.
Answer me one question. Is the ornamental cross displayed on peoples chests and artifacts honoring him? Either way its a miracle isnt it?
Oh, and I guess it's time to throw in the required agnostic response to talk of "The Cross". The cross, as a symbol, predates Christianity by many thousands of years. Just further evidence (to me) that Christianity is an amalgam of several older, more "primitive" religions.
Virgin births, miraculous healings, strange speaking abilities, prophetic dreams, spiritual guidance from the beyond, and ,naturally, a "superman" hero to worship, all were practiced by numerous cultures centuries before Christianity. And, it seems to me, that Christians today are especially ignorant of - or blind to - the natural evolution of religion and Christianity's place in that.
Oh, and I guess it's time to throw in the required agnostic response to talk of "The Cross". The cross, as a symbol, predates Christianity by many thousands of years.
True it may have been a symbol, I am simply saying that the fact that that "sign of Jonah" hangs on every church whistle and on everyones lapel or whatever they do with it is a "miracle" of God.
The sign Jesus painted saying it would be given to a wicked and adultrous generation, is in fact alive as a "sign" today.
I dont know what else to say to you Geo, I really don't. I cannot argue about Christ being alive in my life through the power of the Holy Spirit except to say, it is very real to me. Proof Positive to me.
Re: "I cannot argue about Christ being alive in my life through the power of the Holy Spirit except to say, it is very real to me. Proof Positive to me."
Well, I'm glad for you. Just, please allow a little room for those of us who don't share in your concept of spiritual realities.
I may be an unbeliever, but I know a bit about the Bible. The sign of Jonah wasn't a tree or cross.
quote:Matthew 12:
39: But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
I never took it away from you geo, and neither have I tried to assert undue influence.
Look, there are perhaps only 2 mens books in this life that have really touched my heart. One I think you would find interesting. It's just a short booklet by a man named Sadhu Sundar Sing. In it he claimed to have a heavenly vision. The man died in the 30's or 20's, he was a converted Hindu. I think you would enjoy it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
9
24
5
Popular Days
Aug 10
19
Aug 11
14
Aug 12
13
Aug 13
12
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 34 posts
George Aar 9 posts
Oakspear 24 posts
Mike 5 posts
Popular Days
Aug 10 2004
19 posts
Aug 11 2004
14 posts
Aug 12 2004
13 posts
Aug 13 2004
12 posts
def59
OK Oak I'll response to your response to my response to Geo Aar.
{OK let's set up some premises and we'll go through them}
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
One thing commonly mentioned is that if you had proof or a sign you would believe.
I dont believe that would do it. These things can be rationalized away also. If they werent rationalized away, some folks take it as a sign of God's approval which they are not. Other folks would think its time to start a religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I agree with you on this. So many times the "signs" that people see are not so clear that anyone would recognize them as a "sign", they can be rationalized away. Who knows, if I'd have seen Moses' burning bush maybe I would have called the fire department
:P-->; or spent my time analyzing the individual wool fibers on Gideon's fleece 
If you believe, it's personal. It's something that you experience, according to the testimony that I've seen here. So-called signs would be something "objective", that anyone could see...but would everyone interpret that sign the same way? Would everyone ascribe it to God? Nope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Oak,
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting while I was away.
:P-->
And Def, you seem to have illustrated exactly the impass I was trying to describe in my first post. We have a disconnect. We're not speaking on the same level. You are in believer mode, and I am not. Hence, we'll have great difficulty understanding one another ( I think I have the edge, though, as I USED to believe very similarly to what you seem to now).
For all the evidence I could cite as to the various disagreements among scholars about who actually authored the O.T. AND N.T., the discrepencies in supposed secular sources (Josephus, et al), or (as Oakspear has already done) point out all the logical fallacies in your arguments, I'm quite sure you'd be perfectly comfortable dismissing it all with the wave of a hand, because it disagrees with your accepted "faith".
The place where I allow my mind to go is verboten to you. You cannot allow yourself to really take much of it in, without getting increasingly uncomfortable, or even downright angry. I get it.
And, no, I'm not claiming superior intelligence or insight or anything of the sort. I think I have a more skeptical nature, that's all. And I think at best all we can hope to do is agree to disagree.
Such is life.
And Sky, I guess you're on sebatical, but when you return, could you explain the thingy about Buddhism and molten lava? I REALLY don't get that. I'm far from an expert on the faith, but I do go to Buddhist temples from time to time (more for the architecture than anything else), and from what I can tell, they're raison d'etre is to achieve "enlightenment". Not a bad goal, really, but what's with the "molten stone" nonsense?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Geo: (and Oak)
I may have messed or missed on that one. My understanding of some eastern religions was that they actually pray to a statue of Budda. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps also some eastern religions have modified the way they practice over the years. I am not a expert on the matter.
Perhaps you could give me that perspective because I really don't know. Yes, Geo, it was a shot in the dark, and I am presuming it was a good "shot in the dark." With respect to the Hindu topic, no response is necessary as I would not find anything to appealing about living the next life as a cow.
As far as the sabatical goes (and humorously) , my sabatical is always determined by the level of my wife's crowing (I am woman hear me roar) to which I proclaim, I will be a mouse in the house if you simply give me my quite corner.
Oak:
We have had some fun, no?
:)-->
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I think you are mistaken about worshipping staues of Buddha, although I am not familiar with every sect. Buddhists consider the Buddha "enlightened" and his teachings worthy to be followed, but he is not considered a god in any way, shape, or form
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Oak Sorry lost track of this thread. I agree with you that Hebrew was without question the original language of the Old Testament. Also that just because lamsa translated Genesis that way does not guarantee that it was first in the Aramic, nor does it guarantee that it was not either.
But my response was to your comment that it was Dr Wierwille's idea! It was not he got it from Lamsa so in this case it really is a translation issue with him not something that Dr. Wierwille invented as you implied. Not that there were not plenty of other things that were "invented" Just keeping the record straight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
okay, thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
I looked the World over and I thought I'd found true love, you came round yonder and putttttzzzz
YOU WERE GONE.
NO i AM NOT mocking anyone neither am i drunk, I just don't have anything to say right now , so I let yah know I am listening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
are you really excathedra?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
The first house my wife and I rented after we got married was an unusual brick house which included (at the end of the doorway hall) a stone Buddha statue, set upon its alter beneath a small skylight. That was a cool statue. In the morning the natural sunlight would beam down on it, and in times of the full moon with an especial ethereal glow.
I didn't become a Buddhist back then but I liked that statue.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
your comment:
are you really excathedra?
Did you mean me, nope I am not excathedra.
If you were talking to me i simply feel mentally challenged tonight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
The only problem with the aforementioned brick house was that it was apparently in the migratory path of thousands of crawling millipedes.
Unfortunately I did not always exercise the peaceful way in dealing with these benign albeit slimy creatures which literally covered almost every inch of my front door each evening. I must have gone through an entire can of "Raid" in two nights...with each morning spent sweeping up piles of their curled-up millipede corpses.
There must have been much weeping and gnashing throughout the millipede kingdom at that time...
I guess I'll never become a member of the "Jane gang" anytime soon, you know, those Indians who covered their mouths for fear of accidently breathing in bugs...
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Geo:
The first house my wife and I rented after we got married was an unusual brick house which included (at the end of the doorway hall) a stone Buddha statue
Invisible Dans comment, (thanks Dan)
I told yah I told yah I told yah
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Sky,
Yeah, I'm pretty well aware of the propensity for statuary in the Buddhist faith. If you'd been around a few years ago you could have seen the picture I posted of the largest bronze statue of Buddha in the world (Daibutsudan in Nara, Japan).
The comment I didn't understand was about the "molten" stone. And - I still don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sky,
"The first house my wife and I rented after we got married was an unusual brick house which included (at the end of the doorway hall) a stone Buddha statue
Invisible Dans comment, (thanks Dan)
I told yah I told yah I told yah"
Yeah, and many of the Christian churches have huge Crosses, statues of Jesus, etc. Does that mean the Christians are also worshipping statues? Or do they perhaps simply use them as reminders of something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Geo & Abigail:
Here's a thought. Jesus said, " A wicked and adulterous generations seeks after a sign, but there shall no sign be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah" And what was that sign?
Jonah sat under a tree after the people of Ninevah were delivered from destruction. So what is the sign, that is given to our "wicked and adulterous generation", I would say the same "sign" , that is the Cross which hangs from every church.
I find this to be a miracle. Imagine if a man was slain with a knife, and in "memory" they hung
the "knife", that killed him in that persons honor. Wouldnt that be considered rubbing it in his face? Thats the rub with Christ, that cross, everyone must apply it to there own life or hang one in ornamental fashion as tho they are honoring him.
Answer me one question. Is the ornamental cross displayed on peoples chests and artifacts honoring him? Either way its a miracle isnt it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Sky,
"Either way its a miracle isnt it?"
Huh?
Oh, and I guess it's time to throw in the required agnostic response to talk of "The Cross". The cross, as a symbol, predates Christianity by many thousands of years. Just further evidence (to me) that Christianity is an amalgam of several older, more "primitive" religions.
Virgin births, miraculous healings, strange speaking abilities, prophetic dreams, spiritual guidance from the beyond, and ,naturally, a "superman" hero to worship, all were practiced by numerous cultures centuries before Christianity. And, it seems to me, that Christians today are especially ignorant of - or blind to - the natural evolution of religion and Christianity's place in that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
GEO:
your comment:
Oh, and I guess it's time to throw in the required agnostic response to talk of "The Cross". The cross, as a symbol, predates Christianity by many thousands of years.
True it may have been a symbol, I am simply saying that the fact that that "sign of Jonah" hangs on every church whistle and on everyones lapel or whatever they do with it is a "miracle" of God.
The sign Jesus painted saying it would be given to a wicked and adultrous generation, is in fact alive as a "sign" today.
I dont know what else to say to you Geo, I really don't. I cannot argue about Christ being alive in my life through the power of the Holy Spirit except to say, it is very real to me. Proof Positive to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Sky,
Re: "I cannot argue about Christ being alive in my life through the power of the Holy Spirit except to say, it is very real to me. Proof Positive to me."
Well, I'm glad for you. Just, please allow a little room for those of us who don't share in your concept of spiritual realities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Sky,
I may be an unbeliever, but I know a bit about the Bible. The sign of Jonah wasn't a tree or cross.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
GEO:
your comment:
Just, please allow a little room for those of us
I never took it away from you geo, and neither have I tried to assert undue influence.
Look, there are perhaps only 2 mens books in this life that have really touched my heart. One I think you would find interesting. It's just a short booklet by a man named Sadhu Sundar Sing. In it he claimed to have a heavenly vision. The man died in the 30's or 20's, he was a converted Hindu. I think you would enjoy it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.